TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Feb 94 05:12:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 92
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
US West WA State Payphone Restrictions (Bruce Miller)
These Cell Phones Don't Work - Why? (Sean Petty)
Monster (800) Number (
[email protected])
GSM Packet Data Addressing? (Antti Hannula)
Information on Americom Communications Inc. (Steve Hutzley)
Answering Machine Accepting Collect Calls (Deborah Castillo)
Area Code Closeness (Paul Robinson)
Cheap Long Distance (Allen Walker)
Unattended File Transfer Program (Shareware) (Bob Malik)
Pac Bell 1994 ISDN Plans (Bob Larribeau)
General Magic? (Antti Hannula)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
*
[email protected] *
The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email:
[email protected].
** Article submission address only:
[email protected] **
Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.
TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. All
opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 01:56:10 PST
From: Bruce Miller <
[email protected]>
Subject: US West WA State Payphone Restrictions
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
In re the Investigation on the )
Commission's Motion ) DOCKET NO. UT-940171
)
PAY TELEPHONE CALL ) NOTICE OF INQUIRY
RESTRICTION )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
establishes this inquiry, on a subject of possible rulemaking, to
discover information and to evaluate options to reduce disruptive or
illicit activity at locations of public pay telephones in the State.
In 1993, U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST), requested a
declaratory ruling that WAC 480-120-138, the Commission's principal
pay telephone rule, allowed the company to configure pay telephones so
that location providers or adjacent businesses could temporarily
disable the telephones' ability to accept coins. [1] The Commission
entered an order on June 2, 1993, declaring that existing rules did
not permit the proposed action. The order recognized the interests
involved, and suggested that if U S WEST wished to pursue the issue,
it come forward with more information to seek either a waiver of the
existing rule or a change in the rule.
The company did request a rule change. [2] On December 9, 1993,
it petitioned the commission to change WAC 480-120-138 to allow it to
restrict certain pay telephones (at the request of the subscriber,
community, space provider, or law enforcement agency) from accepting
coins between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Emergency access and operator
assistance would be available from the coin restricted instruments,
and the phones would be clearly posted.
The Commission found that it still did not have information
sufficient to satisfy it that the proposal was the most appropriate
way to handle the varied interests involved. The company withdrew the
proposal with the Commission's consent at its open public meeting on
February 9, 1994.
The Commission has recognized the troublesome nature of complex
conflicting public interests: in public safety and freedom from
illicit activity, on the one hand, and in convenient and predictable
telephone access, on the other.
__________________________
[1] Docket No. UT-930430.
[2] Docket No. UT-931556. It also requested a waiver of the rule to
allow coin disabling at limited locations, which the Commission is
considering in Docket No. UT-931491.
DOCKET N0. UT-940171 PAGE 2
The Commission also recognizes that complete removal of a pay
telephone is a possible alternative if other measures, including law
enforcement intervention, cannot control illicit activity that
interferes with personal security or public safety. When that
happens, no public telephone service at all is available. The
existing rule allows restriction of a pay telephone to one-way service
upon written request by a law enforcement agency. Many of the
affected phones have already been restricted to one-way service, the
illicit behavior is still occurring, and some space providers have
asked U S WEST to remove the phones.
To learn more about these pay telephone problems and to consider
options, the Commission has ordered that this Notice of Inquiry be
issued and that the Commission and its Staff gather information and
promote dialogue aimed at understanding and resolving conflicting
public interests.
The Commission has attached to this notice a summary of
background factors and potential issues, and a list of questions for
commenters to address. Interested persons have the following
opportunity to present comments to the Commission:
Written comments should be sent to Steve McLellan,
Secretary, Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission, 1300 Evergreen Park Drive S.W., Olympia, WA
98504-7250, to reach the Commission by March 9, 1994.
Please mark all comments with Docket No. UT-940171.
Informal work sessions will be held after public comment is
received, to allow representatives of affected groups or institutions
to discuss information and explore solutions.
The Commission also anticipates holding one or more meetings to
receive oral comment when specific rule amendments are being
evaluated. It will notify every commenter, and every other person who
asks for the notification, of the time and place of those meetings.
DATED at Olympia, Washington this 9th day of February
1994.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/signed/
Steve McLellan, Secretary
INQUIRY ON PAY TELEPHONE COIN RESTRICTION PAGE 1
DOCKET NO. UT-940171
INTERESTS AT ISSUE; SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
The Commission invites interested persons to address
comments to the following issues and specific questions. Please
note that this is not a ballot in which votes will be counted,
but a way to identify public opinion and hear suggestions for
further discussion. If you see other interests or have comments
not addressed to the questions, please describe those to the
Commission. Every comment is valuable.
AFFECTED INTERESTS
The Commission has identified the following interests
affected by illicit pay phone use and its consequences:
* Illicit activity at a pay telephone site can be disruptive
to a neighborhood, a potential source of crime and a strong
deterrent to law-abiding customers' patronization of nearby
businesses.
* Reasonable access to pay phones is needed by consumers.
Some may not have residential phone service, and pay
telephones may be their only source of telecommunications.
Some may be tourists or visitors in the community.
* Reasonable public telecommunications access is also needed
for personal emergencies not involving a direct threat to
life or property, such as auto breakdowns, delays, etc.
* Areas most prone to illicit behavior near public telephones
may be areas in which public telephones are most needed.
* Non-emergency calls may be routed to emergency 911, simply
because the caller does not have a calling card, coins are
not accepted, and the only coin-free access is to 911. Such
calls could interfere with emergency 911 service.
* Coin restriction also results in higher, operator-assisted
rates. Some consumers, for some calls, may be unable to
call collect or bill a third party.
* Some alternate operator service companies may charge higher
than the prevailing operator assisted rates, perhaps paying
a commission to the location owner or charging a location
surcharge that directly benefits the location owner. This
could provide an economic incentive to restrict coin use.
* Complete removal of telephones may reduce the public's
telecommunications convenience and emergency access.
DOCKET NO. UT-940171 PAGE 2
POSSIBLE OPTIONS:
The Commission has identified the following possible
options. Please describe any experiences you have had with these
or other options, state any statistics you have regarding success
or failure, and describe public response. Please state your
opinion of the various options, and add any additional ideas you
may have about the effectiveness of any option.
* Allowing coin restriction from 6:00 pm. to 6:00 arm. at the
option of the pay phone provider, space provider, law
enforcement agency, or other decider.
* Allowing coin-restricted hours varying by location, when the
problem specifically occurs at that telephone location.
Offering debit cards through local merchants.
* Replacing coin telephones with credit-only phones.
* Replacing touch-tone telephones with rotary dial phones,
although this would limit access to tone generated services
such as voice mail, bank by phone, out-dialling [sic] to pagers.
* Disabling key pads after X number of digits are entered --
also limiting use of tone-generated services.
* Locating pay phones only in well lighted, clean areas.
* Video monitoring the phone (with a notice on or near the
phone stating that callers are monitored).
* Playing distracting music near the pay telephone.
* Reducing the number of phones in a bank Of phones.
* Removing telephones completely at locations experiencing
problems.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
The Commission asks interested persons to address any
potential solutions identified above, and to answer any questions
in the following list that are pertinent to your situation.
* Do you have residential telephone service? Do you have a
calling card? Do you use pay telephones? How often? At
what time, in general -- daytime, evening, or night, or a
combination? When you use pay telephones, generally, do you
use coins to make your call, a calling card, or other
billing? (Please specify)
DOCKET NO. UT-940171 PAGE 3
* Have you been frightened to use a telephone or to patronize
a business, because of behavior near a pay telephone? If
so, please describe the circumstances.
* How would you feel about restricting coin calling from some
pay telephones between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., if 911
emergency and operator assistance are available? Would you
feel differently if the time were shortened, say between
10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.? Would any other times affect your
answer? Why?
* What circumstances (if any) justify coin restrictions? If a
pay telephone were coin restricted, would the problem simply
move to a different pay telephone? Would the problem still
exist around a coin-restricted pay telephone?
* How would a coin restricted phone affect persons in the
neighborhood, who may not have a phone? If you have no
residential telephone service, do you rely on pay
telephones? For what kinds of calls do you use the pay
telephone? How do you think a coin restricted phone would
affect other residents in the neighborhood? Would locally
available debit cards offer effective alternative access to
coin restricted phones, or would they defeat the purpose of
coin restriction in the first place?
* Should coin restriction be allowed only when operator
services are offered at or below prevailing rates, or at
coin rates?
* Is the consumer best served by allowing a form of
restriction on the use of pay telephone, or simply by
removing the phone?
* Is it a law enforcement responsibility to work with the
companies and affected groups about this issue, rather than
the Commission's responsibility?
* How may we measure the effectiveness of any solution? What
criteria can be used?
Please add any other comments about this issue.
For more information please contact Suzanne Stillwell, Consumer
Affairs section, at 1-800-562-6150.
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Sean Petty)
Subject: These Cell Phones Dont Work - Why?
Date: 20 Feb 1994 18:18:52 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562)
The customers on the other end were quite unhappy. Aparently their
cellular phones had almost instantly ALL stopped working. It had us
baffled, and we requested several of them to come into the shop so
that we could further investigate the phenomenon. A serious look at
many mobiles showed us that the phones would no longer work on the
Comcast System, they were denied access and the phone went into roam.
Switching them to the 'B' system (Bell Atlantic) revealed that the
phones worked flawlessly on the competitor's equipment.
When we contacted Comcast, they were less than helpful, almost seeming
as if they were hiding some bit of technical gem, and they refused to
give us a reason as to why all of these phones mysteriously quit
working. The only information they provided was that they had
upgraded some equipment and no longer supported the phones. The
customers were obviously unhappy and many switched to the 'B' system,
although Comcast did upgrade some of them.
Anyhow, the other day Comcast published a letter saying: "The following
phones are not compatible with our system -- all Motorola Model 8000-D's,
All Harris Equipment, All Sony Portables that have a Black label under
the battery, and All Panasonic HP 500's that haven't been upgraded."
Why are these phones different from all others that make them
incompatible?
Sean
------------------------------
From:
[email protected]
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:26:10 EST
Subject: Monster (800) Number
On the 'Monsters of the Gridiron' promotion ...
> By the way, does anyone have any details about the platform they
> used for this particular promotion? Or even some numbers such as how
> many calls, how many ports, etc?
I don't have any specific information on that particular promotion,
but I did read an article recently on a similar promotion ran by Diet
Pepsi. Their (800) number WAS (800) CALL-RAY. After being connected
you got to hear an interactive recording of Ray Charles and the
'Uh-Huh Girls'. They sent out the phone number via direct mail
(1,000,000 mailings) and got a bit over half a million calls. The
calls were handled by a company named West Interactive of Omaha, NB,
who claimed that 98% of the people who called actually listened
through the whole 3 1/2 minute message. Those who responded had a
chance to win a one-year supply of Diet Pepsi, and other miscellaneous
instant prizes. BTW, NO the number is not still working.
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Antti Hannula)
Subject: GSM Packet Data Addressing
Date: 20 Feb 94 18:45:08 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
I would like to have information on the GSM Data Packet protocol.
I've been told that GSM data is essentially 'slower' ISDN over the
radioways. What does it mean in the compatibility etc. terms?
How is the destination computer addressed from a mobile terminal using
GSM packet data? Is it an ISDN number or something else? For the
other end, does it look like a short connection or is it maybe using
the 16k D-channel?
Does anyone also know how would a server be like in order to provide
information server for this GSM data protocol?
All information concerning these problems is greatly appreciated,
including pointers to other information sources on the subjects.
Antti Hannula
[email protected]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Steve Hutzley)
Subject: Information on Americom Communications Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 15:03:40 GMT
Dear Netters,
I am seeking any information on a long distance/800 telephone company
called AMERICOM COMMUNICATIONS INC., of Dayton, OH.
ANY information is greatly appreciated.
Please respond to:
[email protected]
Thank you in advance.
Steve
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (deborah castillo)
Subject: Answering Machine Accepting Collect Calls
Date: 20 Feb 1994 03:02:24 -0700
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
I was wondering if a phone company will let someone leave a message on
my answering machine if this person calls collect, and I leave a
message such as "We will accept charges for collect calls from xyz"???
The reason I need to know is because I will be out of town, and won't
know at what number I can be reached. I have some relatives coming in
on an international flight the same day. I just want them to be able
to leave a message to me in case they get delayed etc.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Joke first, then a serious note -- tell
your relatives to use a COCOT/AOS instead of a Genuine Bell phone. A lot
of them are known to mysteriously process collect calls to phone bills
which 'someone' approved. After the fact, they'll claim your answering
machine must have 'pressed one to accept this call' or whatever. :)
The real answer to your question is you should record your greeting to
include the phrase, "operator, we will accept collect calls at this
number". Obviously, you don't want to have that phrase on your machine
except for the minimum amount of time you are in-transit. If you can
change it remotely once you have a number where calls can be received
then obviously you should do so. That phrase is usually only left on
an answering machine on a permanent basis when a company is using it
instead of an 800 number for whatever reason. Operators (at least the
Bell/AT&T kind) are supposed to honor it. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 06:43:35 EST
From: Paul Robinson <
[email protected]>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <
[email protected]>
Subject: Area Code Closeness
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
Telecom Digest Editor noted:
> 212 is in New York and 213 is in California some four thousand miles away.
And other mentions: 312 in Chicago; 313 in Detroit. And here's one
long string: 413 in Massachusetts, 414 in Milwaukee, 415 in San
Francisco, 416 in Toronto, etc.
The most unusual one I noticed was a combined set. I always wondered
why they had never reversed the two; had they done so, _both_ areas
could have allowed people to advertise phone numbers of eight digits.
The two areas were Dallas/Fort Worth and Los Angeles/Southern
California (back then). Los Angeles is 213, Dallas is 214; Fort Worth
is 713, Orange County and the rest of Southern California (was then)
714. Had they switched these, the Southern California area could have
allowed people to advertise an 8 digit number starting with 3 or 4,
since they would all have started with 21 or 71. And the Metroplex
could have done the exact same thing only using the other two-digit
group.
I sometimes wondered why, when the new area code system was being intro-
duced, that something akin to the Zip Code(R) system wasn't created,
where the U.S. and Canada were broken into perhaps six or eight areas,
and in each area the states were assigned a block of numbers corresponding
to their prior usage, multiplied by 3 or 10, e.g. California would probably
be assigned all of the numbers, say, 220-299, while the 320-399 group
might encompass Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and
Hawaii. Then you might have the 820-899 or 920-999 (or both) groups
being used for the "non-assigned" number codes the way 700, 800 and
900 numbers are now.
Well, twenty years from now when they probably have to change the area
code system by adding another digit either to the phone number or the
area codes (or both) to cover growth, I hope perhaps then they might
consider some change that would make more sense. (The telephone
companies think this change will last some fifty years, but with the
massive changes already happening, I suspect that we will eat the
additional 600+ area codes a lot faster than they think.)
Let's consider: if they add one digit to the prefix code, making
prefixes four digits, and one to the area code, making area codes four
digits, it would make telephone numbers uniform at 4-4-4 digits. On
the other hand, it would make them harder to memorize since seven is,
based on many tests, the "standard memory size" of the human brain.
Perhaps simply moving to four digit area codes some twenty years from
now is enough; it would allow all local calls to remain seven digits
while the area code expands, the way it did "twenty years ago back in
1995."
We don't have video telephones yet, which could be on a different set
of exchanges the way telex machines were; a movie could be assigned a
telephone number during the week it's in use, or on a regular basis,
just like 900 numbers are used to record polls.
There are a lot of things we can probably do in the future we can't
dream of now, which will probably eat telephone numbers (and area
codes) even faster than we do now.
Paul Robinson --
[email protected]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The idea behind the original numbering
scheme was to make the additional three digits as easy and fast to
dial as possible in a time when rotary (pulse) dialing was the
accepted standard. Although in the 1940-60 period, 'long dial pulls'
were quite fashionable (and businesses wanted whenever possible to
have a number ending in 'thousand' or 'hundred', the thinking was the
public would not like having long dial pulls for area codes. So the
places deemed to get the most calls via the long distance network from
around the country got the low numbered, 'short pull' area codes, ie.
New York = five pulses (212); Chicago and Los Angeles = six pulses
(312 and 213); Detroit = seven pulses (313) along with other areas
ranking about the same in population (214 and 412). But forty years
ago when the current plan was started, New York, Chicago and Los
Angeles were the major centers of commerce in the USA with Detroit
very close behind. I do not know why Washington DC and the Maryland
suburbs of DC got fourteen pulses (202 and 301) or why the Virginia
suburbs of DC got twenty pulses (703). Generally by the time one got
to the 15-20 pulse area codes (702, 801, 602, etc) one would be in
(back then) relatively deserted, out of the way places such as Nevada,
Utah and Arizona with their sparce populations). The early use of
area codes requiring more than twenty pulses (808, 809, was almost
non-existent but a few were around. So that was the thinking: make
it a quick job to dial long distance calls yourself at a time when
long distance operators were still putting through the bulk of the
LD traffic as Direct Distance Dialing (DDD) was getting phased in. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Allen Walker <
[email protected]>
Subject: Cheap Long Distance!
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 11:02:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (
[email protected] email, 800-695-4005 voice)
GTI telecom introduces the lowest long distance telephone rates
imaginable! Here is some information about the CALL AMERICA TRAVEL
PLAN from GTI. Calls may be placed TO and FROM any of the 50 states at
ANYTIME of the DAY at the incredible rate of $2.60 per hour. This
means you can call 24hrs/7 days a week at this rate! Here's how the
plan works:
GTI offers it's service via an 800 number so you will not have to
change your long distance carrier to signup. All members are given two
(2) PIN codes to access the system. The first PIN code, allows you to
make calls at the incredible rate of only $2.60 per call. Each of
these calls may last up to one hour in duration. However, if you spend
LESS than one minute, you will only be billed $.30 instead of $2.60.
If your call extends past one hour you will be billed 17.5
cents/minute (6 second increments) every minute thereafter. The second
PIN code is used for those short calls you make. These calls are
billed at a FLAT rate of 17.5 cents/minute (6 sec increments), again
with no time restrictions. This rate is still very competitive against
major carriers at DAYTIME and some EVENING rates. Calls to Canada and
Puerto Rico are a flat $.48/min and $.24/min respectively.
Here is a typical question people ask:
What if I don't use a FULL hour? Even if you only use 25 minutes with your
HOUR PIN code you will still save money. If the call lasts 25 minutes at 13
cents/min the call will cost you $3.25 compared to GTI's $2.60. And 13
cents/min is often the cheapest rate you can call with other major carriers.
So either way you will save. What's more, you can use this from any phone in
the USA!
This may sound to good to be TRUE but it isn't. GTI is expanding on a
daily basis and the service is excellent. The cost to signup is a one
time $25 registration fee. This is accompanied by a 60 DAY RISK FREE
GUARANTEE, meaning your $25 will be refunded if you wish to cancel
within that period of time. If you wish to have a signup brochure sent
to you via USMAIL or have any other questions, send EMAIL replys to:
[email protected]. Please include your postal address if you wish to
have the brochure sent to you now.
Thank you!
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've got an idea there is *something* we
are overlooking or not hearing about here. If anyone gets the brochure on
this, perhaps they will kindly type it in or summarize it further. PAT]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Bob Malik)
Subject: Unattended File Transfer Program (Shareware)
Date: 20 Feb 1994 16:22:45 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville
Is there a Shareware program available which is like pcAnywhere or
LapLink V? I've been looking for something that provides the
capability to perform scheduled (timed) file transfers unattended.
I've looked at TeleReplica (TR4-26.zip) -- with it you can control
another PC (remote computing) using a Modem, but you can't really set
it up to do what I want.
Also, I've looked at DATTRF.zip.
If anyone has any info on this, please reply and post a message in
the Digest, or you can send me email at:
[email protected]
Thanks,
Bob Malik
[email protected]
------------------------------
From: Bob Larribeau <
[email protected]>
Subject: Pac Bell 1994 ISDN Plans
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:25:47 -0800
Organization: Consultant
Pac Bell recently provided some information on changes on their
ISDN tariffs and service at an Executive Council meeting that may
be of general interest.
Centrex ISDN:
A tariff simplification is planned for mid-year that will include
reducing it down to one offering at $31.65 per month which
. includes loop extension beyond 18 kft.
. includes 2 B-channels of circuit voice or data
. D-packet will be $4.00 per month additional
SDS IS:
Single line business service tariff will not be changed. Current
tariff is $27.85 per month plus usage.
Home ISDN:
A residential ISDN tariff will be offered during the summer at $27.95
pr month. Usage charges will apply only during 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on
weekdays. It will be charged on a flat rate basis at nights and
weekends outside of this peak period.
. includes loop extension beyond 18 kft.
. includes 2 B-channels of circuit voice or data
. D-packet will be $4.00 per month additional
. $125 installation charge will be waived with 2 year commitment
Primary Rate ISDN:
Tariff is under redesign and a new tariff will be available before the
end of 1994.
ISDN Availability:
Pac Bell will begin implementation of an ISDN ANYWHERE program to
provide ISDN to all Pac Bell customers at tariffed rates regardless of
whether ISDN is supplied by the local office or not.
. it utilizes offices where ISDN is already deployed
. based on aggregation of demand, it could allow for 100%
availability with acceptance of a number change.
ISDN Service Center:
Pac Bell will complete implementation of an ISDN service center that
will take all BRI orders by mid-year. It will have a statewide 800
number.
Pac Bell ISDN Information:
Switched Services Availability Hotline: 1-800-995-0346
Pac Bell Applications Bulletin Board:
. analog dialup 510-277-1037
. ISDN line 510-823-4888
Ordering Information: 1-800-622-0735
Bob Larribeau San Francisco
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Antti Hannula)
Subject: General Magic?
Date: 20 Feb 94 19:18:16 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
I read an article about AT&T's and other's General Magic and
Telescript systems. It sounds like very potential platform to
implements some nice services, but currently I have no idea how to get
more information on this.
Does anyone know more about this? Information on the systems itself, how
to develop an application with this etc?
All information will be greatly appreciated, thanks!
Antti Hannula Helsinki University of Technology
[email protected]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #92
*****************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
